User login
Statin therapy seems safe in pregnancy
Statins may be safe when used during pregnancy, with no increase in risk for fetal anomalies, although there may be a higher risk for low birth weight and preterm labor, results of a large study from Taiwan suggest.
The Food and Drug Administration relaxed its warning on statins in July 2021, removing the drug’s blanket contraindication in all pregnant women.
Removal of the broadly worded contraindication should “enable health care professionals and patients to make individual decisions about benefit and risk, especially for those at very high risk of heart attack or stroke,” the FDA said in their announcement.
“Our findings suggested that statins may be used during pregnancy with no increase in the rate of congenital anomalies,” wrote Jui-Chun Chang, MD, from Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan, and colleagues in the new study, published online Dec. 30, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
“For pregnant women at low risk, statins should be used carefully after assessing the risks of low birth weight and preterm birth,” they said. “For women with dyslipidemia or high-risk cardiovascular disease, as well as those who use statins before conception, statins may be continuously used with no increased risks of neonatal adverse effects.”
The study included more than 1.4 million pregnant women aged 18 years and older who gave birth to their first child between 2004 and 2014.
A total of 469 women (mean age, 32.6 years; mean gestational age, 38.4 weeks) who used statins during pregnancy were compared with 4,690 matched controls who had no statin exposure during pregnancy.
After controlling for maternal comorbidities and age, women who used statins during pregnancy were more apt to have low-birth-weight babies weighing less than 2,500 g (risk ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.16) and to deliver preterm (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.46-2.71).
The statin-exposed babies were also more likely to have a lower 1-minute Apgar score (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.04-3.20). Importantly, however, there was no increase in risk for fetal anomalies in the statin-exposed infants, the researchers said.
In addition, for women who used statins for more than 3 months prior to pregnancy, maintaining statin use during pregnancy did not increase the risk for adverse neonatal outcomes, including congenital anomalies, low birth weight, preterm birth, very low birth weight, low Apgar scores, and fetal distress.
The researchers called for further studies to confirm their observations.
Funding for the study was provided by Taichung Veterans General Hospital. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Statins may be safe when used during pregnancy, with no increase in risk for fetal anomalies, although there may be a higher risk for low birth weight and preterm labor, results of a large study from Taiwan suggest.
The Food and Drug Administration relaxed its warning on statins in July 2021, removing the drug’s blanket contraindication in all pregnant women.
Removal of the broadly worded contraindication should “enable health care professionals and patients to make individual decisions about benefit and risk, especially for those at very high risk of heart attack or stroke,” the FDA said in their announcement.
“Our findings suggested that statins may be used during pregnancy with no increase in the rate of congenital anomalies,” wrote Jui-Chun Chang, MD, from Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan, and colleagues in the new study, published online Dec. 30, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
“For pregnant women at low risk, statins should be used carefully after assessing the risks of low birth weight and preterm birth,” they said. “For women with dyslipidemia or high-risk cardiovascular disease, as well as those who use statins before conception, statins may be continuously used with no increased risks of neonatal adverse effects.”
The study included more than 1.4 million pregnant women aged 18 years and older who gave birth to their first child between 2004 and 2014.
A total of 469 women (mean age, 32.6 years; mean gestational age, 38.4 weeks) who used statins during pregnancy were compared with 4,690 matched controls who had no statin exposure during pregnancy.
After controlling for maternal comorbidities and age, women who used statins during pregnancy were more apt to have low-birth-weight babies weighing less than 2,500 g (risk ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.16) and to deliver preterm (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.46-2.71).
The statin-exposed babies were also more likely to have a lower 1-minute Apgar score (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.04-3.20). Importantly, however, there was no increase in risk for fetal anomalies in the statin-exposed infants, the researchers said.
In addition, for women who used statins for more than 3 months prior to pregnancy, maintaining statin use during pregnancy did not increase the risk for adverse neonatal outcomes, including congenital anomalies, low birth weight, preterm birth, very low birth weight, low Apgar scores, and fetal distress.
The researchers called for further studies to confirm their observations.
Funding for the study was provided by Taichung Veterans General Hospital. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Statins may be safe when used during pregnancy, with no increase in risk for fetal anomalies, although there may be a higher risk for low birth weight and preterm labor, results of a large study from Taiwan suggest.
The Food and Drug Administration relaxed its warning on statins in July 2021, removing the drug’s blanket contraindication in all pregnant women.
Removal of the broadly worded contraindication should “enable health care professionals and patients to make individual decisions about benefit and risk, especially for those at very high risk of heart attack or stroke,” the FDA said in their announcement.
“Our findings suggested that statins may be used during pregnancy with no increase in the rate of congenital anomalies,” wrote Jui-Chun Chang, MD, from Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan, and colleagues in the new study, published online Dec. 30, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
“For pregnant women at low risk, statins should be used carefully after assessing the risks of low birth weight and preterm birth,” they said. “For women with dyslipidemia or high-risk cardiovascular disease, as well as those who use statins before conception, statins may be continuously used with no increased risks of neonatal adverse effects.”
The study included more than 1.4 million pregnant women aged 18 years and older who gave birth to their first child between 2004 and 2014.
A total of 469 women (mean age, 32.6 years; mean gestational age, 38.4 weeks) who used statins during pregnancy were compared with 4,690 matched controls who had no statin exposure during pregnancy.
After controlling for maternal comorbidities and age, women who used statins during pregnancy were more apt to have low-birth-weight babies weighing less than 2,500 g (risk ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.16) and to deliver preterm (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.46-2.71).
The statin-exposed babies were also more likely to have a lower 1-minute Apgar score (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.04-3.20). Importantly, however, there was no increase in risk for fetal anomalies in the statin-exposed infants, the researchers said.
In addition, for women who used statins for more than 3 months prior to pregnancy, maintaining statin use during pregnancy did not increase the risk for adverse neonatal outcomes, including congenital anomalies, low birth weight, preterm birth, very low birth weight, low Apgar scores, and fetal distress.
The researchers called for further studies to confirm their observations.
Funding for the study was provided by Taichung Veterans General Hospital. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Novel antidepressant shows promise as add-on therapy
as add-on therapy
Adjunctive treatment with the novel oral medication REL-1017 (esmethadone) is effective in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) who have failed other antidepressants, new research suggests.
REL-1017, from Relmada Therapeutics, is a novel N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) channel blocker that preferentially targets hyperactive channels while maintaining physiologic glutamatergic neurotransmission.
Results from a phase 2a study showed rapid “therapeutic efficacy,” with a statistical difference by day 4, and the improvement was “robust,” with an effect size of 0.7 to 1. The positive outcome was also sustained for at least 1 week after treatment discontinuation, coinvestigator Paolo L. Manfredi, MD, chief scientific officer, Relmada Therapeutics, noted.
“Considering that the available traditional antidepressants have an average effect size around 0.3, this novel, potential rapid-acting antidepressant … holds great promise for millions of patients suffering from depression,” Dr. Manfredi told this news organization.
These results were obtained with a “very-well-tolerated once-daily oral NMDAR antagonist, without the dissociative effects seen with ketamine,” he added.
The findings were published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
‘Clear need’ for better therapies
It is estimated that more than half of patients with MDD fail to respond adequately following their first standard antidepressant treatment. In addition, responses are often delayed by 4-8 weeks after starting an antidepressant.
Therefore, there is a “clear need” to develop drugs for MDD that act quickly and with improved efficacy, the investigators note.
The phase 2a study of REL-1017 enrolled 62 adult patients (45% women) aged 18-65 years with moderate to severe MDD and no significant psychiatric comorbidity. All had failed to benefit from one to three standard antidepressant treatments in their current major depressive episode.
The researchers evaluated two doses of REL-1017 (25 mg and 50 mg once daily) vs. placebo given as adjunctive treatment. The assigned treatment lasted 7 days.
The primary study objectives were safety and tolerability. Results showed no serious adverse events (AEs), and no patients experienced treatment-emergent AEs that led to the stopping of treatment.
In addition, patients receiving the active drug experienced mild or moderate transient AEs comparable to placebo, with no opioid, dissociative, or psychotomimetic symptoms, or withdrawal effects when treatment ended.
The most common AEs reported were headache, constipation, nausea, and sleepiness.
Significant efficacy
The primary efficacy endpoint was the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS) score.
MADRS scores showed improvement on day 4 of treatment in both REL-1017 groups, and the improvement continued through day 7 (last dose) and day 14 (7 days after the last dose), with P ≤ .0308 and effect sizes ranging from 0.7 to 1.0.
Mean change from baseline in MADRS scores showed more improvement at the end of the dosing period for both dosing groups (–16.8 with 25 mg and –16.6 with 50 mg) vs. –8.8 with placebo.
Results of the other efficacy endpoints of Symptoms of Depression Questionnaire (SDQ) score and Clinical Global Impressions severity scale (CGI-S) and improvement scale (CGI-I) scores were similar to that of the MADRS.
Remission rates (defined as a MADRS score ≤10) on day 14, the last day of efficacy assessment, were 5% with placebo vs. 31% (P = .035) with REL-1017 25 mg and 39% (P = .01) with REL-1017 50 mg.
The number needed to treat to achieve remission on day 14 was four with the 25-mg dose and three with the 50-mg dose.
Phase 3 trials to confirm the efficacy and safety of REL-1017 are in progress, with topline results expected later this year, the investigators report.
The study was funded by Relmada Therapeutics. Dr. Manfredi has received personal fees from and/or held stock ownership in Relmada. Disclosures for the other investigators are fully listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adjunctive treatment with the novel oral medication REL-1017 (esmethadone) is effective in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) who have failed other antidepressants, new research suggests.
REL-1017, from Relmada Therapeutics, is a novel N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) channel blocker that preferentially targets hyperactive channels while maintaining physiologic glutamatergic neurotransmission.
Results from a phase 2a study showed rapid “therapeutic efficacy,” with a statistical difference by day 4, and the improvement was “robust,” with an effect size of 0.7 to 1. The positive outcome was also sustained for at least 1 week after treatment discontinuation, coinvestigator Paolo L. Manfredi, MD, chief scientific officer, Relmada Therapeutics, noted.
“Considering that the available traditional antidepressants have an average effect size around 0.3, this novel, potential rapid-acting antidepressant … holds great promise for millions of patients suffering from depression,” Dr. Manfredi told this news organization.
These results were obtained with a “very-well-tolerated once-daily oral NMDAR antagonist, without the dissociative effects seen with ketamine,” he added.
The findings were published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
‘Clear need’ for better therapies
It is estimated that more than half of patients with MDD fail to respond adequately following their first standard antidepressant treatment. In addition, responses are often delayed by 4-8 weeks after starting an antidepressant.
Therefore, there is a “clear need” to develop drugs for MDD that act quickly and with improved efficacy, the investigators note.
The phase 2a study of REL-1017 enrolled 62 adult patients (45% women) aged 18-65 years with moderate to severe MDD and no significant psychiatric comorbidity. All had failed to benefit from one to three standard antidepressant treatments in their current major depressive episode.
The researchers evaluated two doses of REL-1017 (25 mg and 50 mg once daily) vs. placebo given as adjunctive treatment. The assigned treatment lasted 7 days.
The primary study objectives were safety and tolerability. Results showed no serious adverse events (AEs), and no patients experienced treatment-emergent AEs that led to the stopping of treatment.
In addition, patients receiving the active drug experienced mild or moderate transient AEs comparable to placebo, with no opioid, dissociative, or psychotomimetic symptoms, or withdrawal effects when treatment ended.
The most common AEs reported were headache, constipation, nausea, and sleepiness.
Significant efficacy
The primary efficacy endpoint was the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS) score.
MADRS scores showed improvement on day 4 of treatment in both REL-1017 groups, and the improvement continued through day 7 (last dose) and day 14 (7 days after the last dose), with P ≤ .0308 and effect sizes ranging from 0.7 to 1.0.
Mean change from baseline in MADRS scores showed more improvement at the end of the dosing period for both dosing groups (–16.8 with 25 mg and –16.6 with 50 mg) vs. –8.8 with placebo.
Results of the other efficacy endpoints of Symptoms of Depression Questionnaire (SDQ) score and Clinical Global Impressions severity scale (CGI-S) and improvement scale (CGI-I) scores were similar to that of the MADRS.
Remission rates (defined as a MADRS score ≤10) on day 14, the last day of efficacy assessment, were 5% with placebo vs. 31% (P = .035) with REL-1017 25 mg and 39% (P = .01) with REL-1017 50 mg.
The number needed to treat to achieve remission on day 14 was four with the 25-mg dose and three with the 50-mg dose.
Phase 3 trials to confirm the efficacy and safety of REL-1017 are in progress, with topline results expected later this year, the investigators report.
The study was funded by Relmada Therapeutics. Dr. Manfredi has received personal fees from and/or held stock ownership in Relmada. Disclosures for the other investigators are fully listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adjunctive treatment with the novel oral medication REL-1017 (esmethadone) is effective in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) who have failed other antidepressants, new research suggests.
REL-1017, from Relmada Therapeutics, is a novel N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) channel blocker that preferentially targets hyperactive channels while maintaining physiologic glutamatergic neurotransmission.
Results from a phase 2a study showed rapid “therapeutic efficacy,” with a statistical difference by day 4, and the improvement was “robust,” with an effect size of 0.7 to 1. The positive outcome was also sustained for at least 1 week after treatment discontinuation, coinvestigator Paolo L. Manfredi, MD, chief scientific officer, Relmada Therapeutics, noted.
“Considering that the available traditional antidepressants have an average effect size around 0.3, this novel, potential rapid-acting antidepressant … holds great promise for millions of patients suffering from depression,” Dr. Manfredi told this news organization.
These results were obtained with a “very-well-tolerated once-daily oral NMDAR antagonist, without the dissociative effects seen with ketamine,” he added.
The findings were published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
‘Clear need’ for better therapies
It is estimated that more than half of patients with MDD fail to respond adequately following their first standard antidepressant treatment. In addition, responses are often delayed by 4-8 weeks after starting an antidepressant.
Therefore, there is a “clear need” to develop drugs for MDD that act quickly and with improved efficacy, the investigators note.
The phase 2a study of REL-1017 enrolled 62 adult patients (45% women) aged 18-65 years with moderate to severe MDD and no significant psychiatric comorbidity. All had failed to benefit from one to three standard antidepressant treatments in their current major depressive episode.
The researchers evaluated two doses of REL-1017 (25 mg and 50 mg once daily) vs. placebo given as adjunctive treatment. The assigned treatment lasted 7 days.
The primary study objectives were safety and tolerability. Results showed no serious adverse events (AEs), and no patients experienced treatment-emergent AEs that led to the stopping of treatment.
In addition, patients receiving the active drug experienced mild or moderate transient AEs comparable to placebo, with no opioid, dissociative, or psychotomimetic symptoms, or withdrawal effects when treatment ended.
The most common AEs reported were headache, constipation, nausea, and sleepiness.
Significant efficacy
The primary efficacy endpoint was the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS) score.
MADRS scores showed improvement on day 4 of treatment in both REL-1017 groups, and the improvement continued through day 7 (last dose) and day 14 (7 days after the last dose), with P ≤ .0308 and effect sizes ranging from 0.7 to 1.0.
Mean change from baseline in MADRS scores showed more improvement at the end of the dosing period for both dosing groups (–16.8 with 25 mg and –16.6 with 50 mg) vs. –8.8 with placebo.
Results of the other efficacy endpoints of Symptoms of Depression Questionnaire (SDQ) score and Clinical Global Impressions severity scale (CGI-S) and improvement scale (CGI-I) scores were similar to that of the MADRS.
Remission rates (defined as a MADRS score ≤10) on day 14, the last day of efficacy assessment, were 5% with placebo vs. 31% (P = .035) with REL-1017 25 mg and 39% (P = .01) with REL-1017 50 mg.
The number needed to treat to achieve remission on day 14 was four with the 25-mg dose and three with the 50-mg dose.
Phase 3 trials to confirm the efficacy and safety of REL-1017 are in progress, with topline results expected later this year, the investigators report.
The study was funded by Relmada Therapeutics. Dr. Manfredi has received personal fees from and/or held stock ownership in Relmada. Disclosures for the other investigators are fully listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
as add-on therapy
as add-on therapy
NSCLC therapies associated with cardiac events
A new analysis of cardiovascular adverse drug reactions for non–small cell lung cancer (NCSLC)–targeted therapies finds that ALK and ROS1 inhibitors are associated with higher odds of conduction disease and QT prolongation than BRAF and EGFR inhibitors.
The findings are especially important because cardiovascular disease is known to be associated with NSCLC. Even before the start of therapy, 14%-22% of patients with stage I-IV NSCLC have heart failure and 26%-31% of patients have arrhythmias. No other study to date has described cardiovascular effects to this extent as a result of treatment.
The findings were published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.
Led by Joel W. Neal, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care, researchers evaluated the association between NSCLC-targeted agents with arrhythmia and heart failure. Their findings are based on analysis of data from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database VigiBase. They found that of 98,765 adverse reactions, 61,383 occurred in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors, 15,540 were associated with ALK inhibitors, and 21,842 were associated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Arrhythmias occurred in 1,783 patients and 1,146 patients had heart failure.
The specifics
Strong associations with conduction disease and QT prolongation were found for ALK and ROS1 inhibitors, especially crizotinib. Of QT prolongation cases, 38.5% of patients on ceritinib and 18.4% of patients on crizotinib also had conduction disease and 7.9% of alectinib-associated conduction disease cases also had prolongation.
BRAF and MEK inhibitors had stronger associations with heart failure, while osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was strongly associated with QT prolongation, supraventricular tachycardia, and heart failure.
ALK inhibitors were found to be 13 times more likely to lead to conduction disease and five times more likely to lead to lead to long QT syndrome as compared to all NSCLC-targeted therapies together. ALK inhibitor crizotinib had significantly higher odds of conduction disease, compared with all other targeted therapies, but of all ALK inhibitors, ceritinib and lorlatinib had the lowest odds of conduction disease. Crizotinib was 1.9 times more likely to lead to QT prolongation than other ALK inhibitors.
The EGFR inhibitor osimertinib was associated with 49 times more like to lead to long QT syndrome than other EGFR inhibitors and 6 times more likely as compared with all other targeted therapies. The EGFR inhibitor gefitinib was twice as likely than other EGFR inhibitors to lead to conduction disease. The third-generation EGFR inhibitor osimertinib had approximately two times higher odds of supraventricular tachycardia than other EGFR inhibitors.
Osimertinib was associated with 6.8 times higher chances of heart failure, compared with other EGFR inhibitors, and 3.6 times more than other targeted therapies. Dabrafenib and trametinib were associated with two to three times higher odds of heart failure as compared with other targeted therapies.
“There is a need for an understanding of the mechanisms underlying these toxicities and for additional studies to establish standardized guidelines for monitoring, particularly for osimertinib, crizotinib, and alectinib,” the authors wrote
The authors disclosed a number of paid advisory roles with various pharmaceutical companies.
A new analysis of cardiovascular adverse drug reactions for non–small cell lung cancer (NCSLC)–targeted therapies finds that ALK and ROS1 inhibitors are associated with higher odds of conduction disease and QT prolongation than BRAF and EGFR inhibitors.
The findings are especially important because cardiovascular disease is known to be associated with NSCLC. Even before the start of therapy, 14%-22% of patients with stage I-IV NSCLC have heart failure and 26%-31% of patients have arrhythmias. No other study to date has described cardiovascular effects to this extent as a result of treatment.
The findings were published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.
Led by Joel W. Neal, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care, researchers evaluated the association between NSCLC-targeted agents with arrhythmia and heart failure. Their findings are based on analysis of data from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database VigiBase. They found that of 98,765 adverse reactions, 61,383 occurred in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors, 15,540 were associated with ALK inhibitors, and 21,842 were associated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Arrhythmias occurred in 1,783 patients and 1,146 patients had heart failure.
The specifics
Strong associations with conduction disease and QT prolongation were found for ALK and ROS1 inhibitors, especially crizotinib. Of QT prolongation cases, 38.5% of patients on ceritinib and 18.4% of patients on crizotinib also had conduction disease and 7.9% of alectinib-associated conduction disease cases also had prolongation.
BRAF and MEK inhibitors had stronger associations with heart failure, while osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was strongly associated with QT prolongation, supraventricular tachycardia, and heart failure.
ALK inhibitors were found to be 13 times more likely to lead to conduction disease and five times more likely to lead to lead to long QT syndrome as compared to all NSCLC-targeted therapies together. ALK inhibitor crizotinib had significantly higher odds of conduction disease, compared with all other targeted therapies, but of all ALK inhibitors, ceritinib and lorlatinib had the lowest odds of conduction disease. Crizotinib was 1.9 times more likely to lead to QT prolongation than other ALK inhibitors.
The EGFR inhibitor osimertinib was associated with 49 times more like to lead to long QT syndrome than other EGFR inhibitors and 6 times more likely as compared with all other targeted therapies. The EGFR inhibitor gefitinib was twice as likely than other EGFR inhibitors to lead to conduction disease. The third-generation EGFR inhibitor osimertinib had approximately two times higher odds of supraventricular tachycardia than other EGFR inhibitors.
Osimertinib was associated with 6.8 times higher chances of heart failure, compared with other EGFR inhibitors, and 3.6 times more than other targeted therapies. Dabrafenib and trametinib were associated with two to three times higher odds of heart failure as compared with other targeted therapies.
“There is a need for an understanding of the mechanisms underlying these toxicities and for additional studies to establish standardized guidelines for monitoring, particularly for osimertinib, crizotinib, and alectinib,” the authors wrote
The authors disclosed a number of paid advisory roles with various pharmaceutical companies.
A new analysis of cardiovascular adverse drug reactions for non–small cell lung cancer (NCSLC)–targeted therapies finds that ALK and ROS1 inhibitors are associated with higher odds of conduction disease and QT prolongation than BRAF and EGFR inhibitors.
The findings are especially important because cardiovascular disease is known to be associated with NSCLC. Even before the start of therapy, 14%-22% of patients with stage I-IV NSCLC have heart failure and 26%-31% of patients have arrhythmias. No other study to date has described cardiovascular effects to this extent as a result of treatment.
The findings were published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.
Led by Joel W. Neal, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care, researchers evaluated the association between NSCLC-targeted agents with arrhythmia and heart failure. Their findings are based on analysis of data from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database VigiBase. They found that of 98,765 adverse reactions, 61,383 occurred in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors, 15,540 were associated with ALK inhibitors, and 21,842 were associated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Arrhythmias occurred in 1,783 patients and 1,146 patients had heart failure.
The specifics
Strong associations with conduction disease and QT prolongation were found for ALK and ROS1 inhibitors, especially crizotinib. Of QT prolongation cases, 38.5% of patients on ceritinib and 18.4% of patients on crizotinib also had conduction disease and 7.9% of alectinib-associated conduction disease cases also had prolongation.
BRAF and MEK inhibitors had stronger associations with heart failure, while osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was strongly associated with QT prolongation, supraventricular tachycardia, and heart failure.
ALK inhibitors were found to be 13 times more likely to lead to conduction disease and five times more likely to lead to lead to long QT syndrome as compared to all NSCLC-targeted therapies together. ALK inhibitor crizotinib had significantly higher odds of conduction disease, compared with all other targeted therapies, but of all ALK inhibitors, ceritinib and lorlatinib had the lowest odds of conduction disease. Crizotinib was 1.9 times more likely to lead to QT prolongation than other ALK inhibitors.
The EGFR inhibitor osimertinib was associated with 49 times more like to lead to long QT syndrome than other EGFR inhibitors and 6 times more likely as compared with all other targeted therapies. The EGFR inhibitor gefitinib was twice as likely than other EGFR inhibitors to lead to conduction disease. The third-generation EGFR inhibitor osimertinib had approximately two times higher odds of supraventricular tachycardia than other EGFR inhibitors.
Osimertinib was associated with 6.8 times higher chances of heart failure, compared with other EGFR inhibitors, and 3.6 times more than other targeted therapies. Dabrafenib and trametinib were associated with two to three times higher odds of heart failure as compared with other targeted therapies.
“There is a need for an understanding of the mechanisms underlying these toxicities and for additional studies to establish standardized guidelines for monitoring, particularly for osimertinib, crizotinib, and alectinib,” the authors wrote
The authors disclosed a number of paid advisory roles with various pharmaceutical companies.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
FDA approves first-in-class inclisiran to lower LDL-C
The Food and Drug Administration has approved inclisiran (Leqvio) as an adjunct to statins for further reduction of LDL cholesterol levels, the drug’s developer, Novartis, announced on Dec. 22, 2021.
The first-in-class small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent is also novel among peer drug therapies for its administration by injection initially, at 3 months, and thereafter twice per year.
Inclisiran is indicated for use atop maximally tolerated statins in adults with clinical cardiovascular disease or in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, the company reported.
Such patients who received inclisiran, compared with placebo, in the ORION-9, ORION-10, and ORION-11 randomized trials on which the FDA approval was based showed LDL-C reductions exceeding 50% over 1-2 years.
The drug works by “silencing” RNA involved in synthesis of PCSK9, which has a role in controlling the number of LDL cholesterol cell-surface receptors, a unique mechanism of action among available treatments for dyslipidemia.
Novartis, the company said, “has obtained global rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize Leqvio under a license and collaboration agreement with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved inclisiran (Leqvio) as an adjunct to statins for further reduction of LDL cholesterol levels, the drug’s developer, Novartis, announced on Dec. 22, 2021.
The first-in-class small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent is also novel among peer drug therapies for its administration by injection initially, at 3 months, and thereafter twice per year.
Inclisiran is indicated for use atop maximally tolerated statins in adults with clinical cardiovascular disease or in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, the company reported.
Such patients who received inclisiran, compared with placebo, in the ORION-9, ORION-10, and ORION-11 randomized trials on which the FDA approval was based showed LDL-C reductions exceeding 50% over 1-2 years.
The drug works by “silencing” RNA involved in synthesis of PCSK9, which has a role in controlling the number of LDL cholesterol cell-surface receptors, a unique mechanism of action among available treatments for dyslipidemia.
Novartis, the company said, “has obtained global rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize Leqvio under a license and collaboration agreement with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved inclisiran (Leqvio) as an adjunct to statins for further reduction of LDL cholesterol levels, the drug’s developer, Novartis, announced on Dec. 22, 2021.
The first-in-class small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent is also novel among peer drug therapies for its administration by injection initially, at 3 months, and thereafter twice per year.
Inclisiran is indicated for use atop maximally tolerated statins in adults with clinical cardiovascular disease or in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, the company reported.
Such patients who received inclisiran, compared with placebo, in the ORION-9, ORION-10, and ORION-11 randomized trials on which the FDA approval was based showed LDL-C reductions exceeding 50% over 1-2 years.
The drug works by “silencing” RNA involved in synthesis of PCSK9, which has a role in controlling the number of LDL cholesterol cell-surface receptors, a unique mechanism of action among available treatments for dyslipidemia.
Novartis, the company said, “has obtained global rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize Leqvio under a license and collaboration agreement with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More lots of metformin recalled
The drumbeat of U.S. recalls continues for various lots of extended-release metformin because of contamination with unacceptably high levels of a nitrosamine that pose a cancer risk.
On Dec. 28, 2021, Viona Pharmaceuticals voluntarily recalled 33 lots of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets, USP 750 mg to the retail level, as a precautionary measure, because of possible contamination with N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).
Metformin is used as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve blood glucose control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients who have received impacted lots of metformin are advised to continue taking their medication and contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment
The product can be identified as white to off-white, capsule shaped, uncoated tablets, debossed with “Z,” “C” on one side and “20” on the other side, and come in bottles of 100 tablets, which have been distributed nationwide. The 33 batch numbers are listed in a company statement.
The affected product was manufactured by Cadila Healthcare, Ahmedabad, India, for U.S. distribution by Viona.
In its statement, Viona said: “NDMA is classified as a probable human carcinogen (a substance that could cause cancer) based on results from laboratory tests. NDMA is a known environmental contaminant and found in water and foods, including meats, dairy products, and vegetables.”
This recall is being conducted “with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” it added.
Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact the recall processor Eversana Life Science Services by phone at 1-888-304-5022, option 1; Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m. CT. Customers with medical-related questions who wish to report an adverse event or quality issues about the products being recalled should contact Viona Pharmaceuticals by phone at 888-304-5011, Monday-Friday, 8:30 p.m.–5:30 p.m., EST.
Latest in a long line of metformin recalls
This is the second time in 2021 that Viona has voluntarily recalled extended-release metformin tablets, 750 mg, because of potential contamination with NDMA. It recalled two lots in June, as reported by this news organization.
And in January 2021, Nostrum Laboratories recalled another lot of metformin extended-release 750-mg tablets, following on from a prior recall in November 2020.
These recalls follows 258 distinct U.S. lot recalls tracked by the FDA during the past 2 years because of unacceptably high NDMA levels in lots of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets.
The FDA has issued several statements about NDMA contamination of metformin formulations over the past 2 years, including a review of the methods used to detect NDMA and a summary of the information the agency had collected on excessive levels of NDMA in metformin.
According to the FDA’s 2020 summary, the agency has not yet determined how or why high levels of NDMA turn up so often in multiple batches of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets. However, published research attributed the contamination to certain methods of manufacturing metformin tablets.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The drumbeat of U.S. recalls continues for various lots of extended-release metformin because of contamination with unacceptably high levels of a nitrosamine that pose a cancer risk.
On Dec. 28, 2021, Viona Pharmaceuticals voluntarily recalled 33 lots of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets, USP 750 mg to the retail level, as a precautionary measure, because of possible contamination with N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).
Metformin is used as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve blood glucose control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients who have received impacted lots of metformin are advised to continue taking their medication and contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment
The product can be identified as white to off-white, capsule shaped, uncoated tablets, debossed with “Z,” “C” on one side and “20” on the other side, and come in bottles of 100 tablets, which have been distributed nationwide. The 33 batch numbers are listed in a company statement.
The affected product was manufactured by Cadila Healthcare, Ahmedabad, India, for U.S. distribution by Viona.
In its statement, Viona said: “NDMA is classified as a probable human carcinogen (a substance that could cause cancer) based on results from laboratory tests. NDMA is a known environmental contaminant and found in water and foods, including meats, dairy products, and vegetables.”
This recall is being conducted “with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” it added.
Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact the recall processor Eversana Life Science Services by phone at 1-888-304-5022, option 1; Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m. CT. Customers with medical-related questions who wish to report an adverse event or quality issues about the products being recalled should contact Viona Pharmaceuticals by phone at 888-304-5011, Monday-Friday, 8:30 p.m.–5:30 p.m., EST.
Latest in a long line of metformin recalls
This is the second time in 2021 that Viona has voluntarily recalled extended-release metformin tablets, 750 mg, because of potential contamination with NDMA. It recalled two lots in June, as reported by this news organization.
And in January 2021, Nostrum Laboratories recalled another lot of metformin extended-release 750-mg tablets, following on from a prior recall in November 2020.
These recalls follows 258 distinct U.S. lot recalls tracked by the FDA during the past 2 years because of unacceptably high NDMA levels in lots of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets.
The FDA has issued several statements about NDMA contamination of metformin formulations over the past 2 years, including a review of the methods used to detect NDMA and a summary of the information the agency had collected on excessive levels of NDMA in metformin.
According to the FDA’s 2020 summary, the agency has not yet determined how or why high levels of NDMA turn up so often in multiple batches of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets. However, published research attributed the contamination to certain methods of manufacturing metformin tablets.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The drumbeat of U.S. recalls continues for various lots of extended-release metformin because of contamination with unacceptably high levels of a nitrosamine that pose a cancer risk.
On Dec. 28, 2021, Viona Pharmaceuticals voluntarily recalled 33 lots of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets, USP 750 mg to the retail level, as a precautionary measure, because of possible contamination with N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).
Metformin is used as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve blood glucose control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients who have received impacted lots of metformin are advised to continue taking their medication and contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment
The product can be identified as white to off-white, capsule shaped, uncoated tablets, debossed with “Z,” “C” on one side and “20” on the other side, and come in bottles of 100 tablets, which have been distributed nationwide. The 33 batch numbers are listed in a company statement.
The affected product was manufactured by Cadila Healthcare, Ahmedabad, India, for U.S. distribution by Viona.
In its statement, Viona said: “NDMA is classified as a probable human carcinogen (a substance that could cause cancer) based on results from laboratory tests. NDMA is a known environmental contaminant and found in water and foods, including meats, dairy products, and vegetables.”
This recall is being conducted “with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” it added.
Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact the recall processor Eversana Life Science Services by phone at 1-888-304-5022, option 1; Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m. CT. Customers with medical-related questions who wish to report an adverse event or quality issues about the products being recalled should contact Viona Pharmaceuticals by phone at 888-304-5011, Monday-Friday, 8:30 p.m.–5:30 p.m., EST.
Latest in a long line of metformin recalls
This is the second time in 2021 that Viona has voluntarily recalled extended-release metformin tablets, 750 mg, because of potential contamination with NDMA. It recalled two lots in June, as reported by this news organization.
And in January 2021, Nostrum Laboratories recalled another lot of metformin extended-release 750-mg tablets, following on from a prior recall in November 2020.
These recalls follows 258 distinct U.S. lot recalls tracked by the FDA during the past 2 years because of unacceptably high NDMA levels in lots of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets.
The FDA has issued several statements about NDMA contamination of metformin formulations over the past 2 years, including a review of the methods used to detect NDMA and a summary of the information the agency had collected on excessive levels of NDMA in metformin.
According to the FDA’s 2020 summary, the agency has not yet determined how or why high levels of NDMA turn up so often in multiple batches of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets. However, published research attributed the contamination to certain methods of manufacturing metformin tablets.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Remdesivir may keep unvaccinated out of the hospital: Study
The antiviral remdesivir, an intravenous drug given mostly to seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals, could keep unvaccinated people who become infected out of the hospital if given on an outpatient basis, a new study says.
Researchers studied 562 unvaccinated people from September 2020 to April 2021, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study determined the risk of hospitalization or death was 87% lower in study participants who were given remdesivir than participants who received a placebo.
All participants were at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 because of their age – they were over 60 – or because they had an underlying medical condition such as diabetes or obesity.
An important caveat: The findings are based on data collected before the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021 or the Omicron variant surged late in the year, the Washington Post reported.
The new study says the drug could be helpful in keeping vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people out of the hospital – an important factor as the Omicron surge threatens to overwhelm health systems around the world.
Remdesivir could be a boon for COVID-19 patients in parts of the world that don’t have vaccines or for patients with immunocompromised systems.
“These data provide evidence that a 3-day course of remdesivir could play a critical role in helping COVID-19 patients stay out of the hospital,” Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, the therapeutic lead for COVID-19 research at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, said in a news release from Gilead Pharmaceuticals. “While our hospitals are ready to assist patients in need, prevention and early intervention are preferable to reduce the risk of disease progression and allow patients not requiring oxygen to recover from home when appropriate.”
Remdesivir was the first antiviral for COVID-19 authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. It was given to then-President Donald Trump when he was hospitalized with COVID-19 in October 2020.
Gilead released the study findings in September.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The antiviral remdesivir, an intravenous drug given mostly to seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals, could keep unvaccinated people who become infected out of the hospital if given on an outpatient basis, a new study says.
Researchers studied 562 unvaccinated people from September 2020 to April 2021, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study determined the risk of hospitalization or death was 87% lower in study participants who were given remdesivir than participants who received a placebo.
All participants were at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 because of their age – they were over 60 – or because they had an underlying medical condition such as diabetes or obesity.
An important caveat: The findings are based on data collected before the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021 or the Omicron variant surged late in the year, the Washington Post reported.
The new study says the drug could be helpful in keeping vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people out of the hospital – an important factor as the Omicron surge threatens to overwhelm health systems around the world.
Remdesivir could be a boon for COVID-19 patients in parts of the world that don’t have vaccines or for patients with immunocompromised systems.
“These data provide evidence that a 3-day course of remdesivir could play a critical role in helping COVID-19 patients stay out of the hospital,” Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, the therapeutic lead for COVID-19 research at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, said in a news release from Gilead Pharmaceuticals. “While our hospitals are ready to assist patients in need, prevention and early intervention are preferable to reduce the risk of disease progression and allow patients not requiring oxygen to recover from home when appropriate.”
Remdesivir was the first antiviral for COVID-19 authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. It was given to then-President Donald Trump when he was hospitalized with COVID-19 in October 2020.
Gilead released the study findings in September.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The antiviral remdesivir, an intravenous drug given mostly to seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals, could keep unvaccinated people who become infected out of the hospital if given on an outpatient basis, a new study says.
Researchers studied 562 unvaccinated people from September 2020 to April 2021, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study determined the risk of hospitalization or death was 87% lower in study participants who were given remdesivir than participants who received a placebo.
All participants were at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 because of their age – they were over 60 – or because they had an underlying medical condition such as diabetes or obesity.
An important caveat: The findings are based on data collected before the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021 or the Omicron variant surged late in the year, the Washington Post reported.
The new study says the drug could be helpful in keeping vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people out of the hospital – an important factor as the Omicron surge threatens to overwhelm health systems around the world.
Remdesivir could be a boon for COVID-19 patients in parts of the world that don’t have vaccines or for patients with immunocompromised systems.
“These data provide evidence that a 3-day course of remdesivir could play a critical role in helping COVID-19 patients stay out of the hospital,” Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, the therapeutic lead for COVID-19 research at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, said in a news release from Gilead Pharmaceuticals. “While our hospitals are ready to assist patients in need, prevention and early intervention are preferable to reduce the risk of disease progression and allow patients not requiring oxygen to recover from home when appropriate.”
Remdesivir was the first antiviral for COVID-19 authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. It was given to then-President Donald Trump when he was hospitalized with COVID-19 in October 2020.
Gilead released the study findings in September.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Fish oil: ‘No net benefit’ for depression prevention?
Fish oil supplementation does not help prevent depression or boost mood, new research suggests.
The VITAL-DEP study included more than 18,000 participants. Among adults aged 50 years or older free of clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, long-term use of marine omega-3 fatty acid (omega-3) supplements did not reduce risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms — or make a difference in the quality of mood.
“While a small increase in risk of depression was inside the statistical margin of significance, there was no harmful or beneficial effect of omega-3 on the overall course of mood during the roughly 5 to 7 years of follow-up,” lead author Olivia I. Okereke, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.
“The takeaway from our study is that there is no net benefit of long-term use of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements for preventing depression or boosting mood,” Okereke said.
The findings were published online Dec. 21 in JAMA.
Assessing general population risk
For many years, experts have recommended omega-3 supplements for reduction in depression recurrence in some high-risk patients, Okereke noted.
“However, there are no guidelines related to the use of omega-3 supplements for preventing depression in the general population. Therefore, we undertook this study to provide clarity in the issue,” she said.
The VITAL-DEP study enrolled 18,353 older adults (mean age, 67.5 years; 49% women). Of these, 16,657 were at risk for incident depression, defined as having no previous history of depression; and 1696 were at risk for recurrent depression, defined as having a history of depression but not having undergone treatment for depression within the past 2 years.
Roughly half the participants were randomly assigned to receive marine omega-3 fatty acids (1 g/d of fish oil, including 465 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and 375 mg of docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) and the other half to matching placebo for an average of 5.3 years.
“Because of the large sample size and long follow-up, we were able to test the effects of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements on universal prevention of depression in the adult population,” Okereke said.
No significant benefit
Results showed risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms (total of incident and recurrent cases) was not significantly different between the omega-3 group and the placebo group.
The omega-3 group had 651 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (13.9 per 1000 person-years), and the placebo group had 583 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (12.3 per 1000 person-years). The hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01 - 1.26; P = .03).
There were also no significant between-group differences in longitudinal mood scores. The mean difference in change in 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) score was 0.03 points (95% CI, −0.01 to 0.07; P = .19).
“Patients, physicians, and other clinicians should understand that there are still many reasons for some people, under the guidance of their health care providers, to take omega-3 fish oil supplements,” Okereke noted.
“These supplements increasingly have been found to have benefits for cardiac disease prevention and treatment of inflammatory conditions, in addition to being used for management of existing depressive disorders in some high-risk patients,” she said.
“However, the results of our study indicate there is no reason for adults in the general population to be taking daily omega-3 fish oil supplements solely for the purpose of preventing depression or for maintaining a positive mood,” she added.
Okereke noted, however, that the VITAL-DEP study used 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids and there may be a greater benefit from taking higher doses, such as 4 g/day.
Cautionary notes
Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Kuan-Pin Su, MD, PhD, chief of the Department of General Psychiatry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, highlighted some of the limitations cited by the investigators.
First, depression or depressive symptoms were defined using self-rating scales, which are “convenient to screen for depressive disorders, but a high score obtained on a self-rating scale does not necessarily indicate the presence of depressive psychopathology,” said Su, who was not involved with the research.
He also noted that use of 465 mg of EPA and 375 mg of DHA in VITAL-DEP “might be too low” to have an impact.
Finally, Su said it is “very important to also address the potential for type I error, which makes the secondary and subgroup analyses less reliable.”
VITAL-DEP was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Pronova BioPharma donated the fish oil and matching placebo. Okereke reported receiving royalties from Springer Publishing. Su is a founding committee member of the International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry Research, the board director of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids, and an associate editor of the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Fish oil supplementation does not help prevent depression or boost mood, new research suggests.
The VITAL-DEP study included more than 18,000 participants. Among adults aged 50 years or older free of clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, long-term use of marine omega-3 fatty acid (omega-3) supplements did not reduce risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms — or make a difference in the quality of mood.
“While a small increase in risk of depression was inside the statistical margin of significance, there was no harmful or beneficial effect of omega-3 on the overall course of mood during the roughly 5 to 7 years of follow-up,” lead author Olivia I. Okereke, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.
“The takeaway from our study is that there is no net benefit of long-term use of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements for preventing depression or boosting mood,” Okereke said.
The findings were published online Dec. 21 in JAMA.
Assessing general population risk
For many years, experts have recommended omega-3 supplements for reduction in depression recurrence in some high-risk patients, Okereke noted.
“However, there are no guidelines related to the use of omega-3 supplements for preventing depression in the general population. Therefore, we undertook this study to provide clarity in the issue,” she said.
The VITAL-DEP study enrolled 18,353 older adults (mean age, 67.5 years; 49% women). Of these, 16,657 were at risk for incident depression, defined as having no previous history of depression; and 1696 were at risk for recurrent depression, defined as having a history of depression but not having undergone treatment for depression within the past 2 years.
Roughly half the participants were randomly assigned to receive marine omega-3 fatty acids (1 g/d of fish oil, including 465 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and 375 mg of docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) and the other half to matching placebo for an average of 5.3 years.
“Because of the large sample size and long follow-up, we were able to test the effects of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements on universal prevention of depression in the adult population,” Okereke said.
No significant benefit
Results showed risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms (total of incident and recurrent cases) was not significantly different between the omega-3 group and the placebo group.
The omega-3 group had 651 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (13.9 per 1000 person-years), and the placebo group had 583 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (12.3 per 1000 person-years). The hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01 - 1.26; P = .03).
There were also no significant between-group differences in longitudinal mood scores. The mean difference in change in 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) score was 0.03 points (95% CI, −0.01 to 0.07; P = .19).
“Patients, physicians, and other clinicians should understand that there are still many reasons for some people, under the guidance of their health care providers, to take omega-3 fish oil supplements,” Okereke noted.
“These supplements increasingly have been found to have benefits for cardiac disease prevention and treatment of inflammatory conditions, in addition to being used for management of existing depressive disorders in some high-risk patients,” she said.
“However, the results of our study indicate there is no reason for adults in the general population to be taking daily omega-3 fish oil supplements solely for the purpose of preventing depression or for maintaining a positive mood,” she added.
Okereke noted, however, that the VITAL-DEP study used 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids and there may be a greater benefit from taking higher doses, such as 4 g/day.
Cautionary notes
Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Kuan-Pin Su, MD, PhD, chief of the Department of General Psychiatry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, highlighted some of the limitations cited by the investigators.
First, depression or depressive symptoms were defined using self-rating scales, which are “convenient to screen for depressive disorders, but a high score obtained on a self-rating scale does not necessarily indicate the presence of depressive psychopathology,” said Su, who was not involved with the research.
He also noted that use of 465 mg of EPA and 375 mg of DHA in VITAL-DEP “might be too low” to have an impact.
Finally, Su said it is “very important to also address the potential for type I error, which makes the secondary and subgroup analyses less reliable.”
VITAL-DEP was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Pronova BioPharma donated the fish oil and matching placebo. Okereke reported receiving royalties from Springer Publishing. Su is a founding committee member of the International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry Research, the board director of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids, and an associate editor of the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Fish oil supplementation does not help prevent depression or boost mood, new research suggests.
The VITAL-DEP study included more than 18,000 participants. Among adults aged 50 years or older free of clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, long-term use of marine omega-3 fatty acid (omega-3) supplements did not reduce risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms — or make a difference in the quality of mood.
“While a small increase in risk of depression was inside the statistical margin of significance, there was no harmful or beneficial effect of omega-3 on the overall course of mood during the roughly 5 to 7 years of follow-up,” lead author Olivia I. Okereke, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.
“The takeaway from our study is that there is no net benefit of long-term use of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements for preventing depression or boosting mood,” Okereke said.
The findings were published online Dec. 21 in JAMA.
Assessing general population risk
For many years, experts have recommended omega-3 supplements for reduction in depression recurrence in some high-risk patients, Okereke noted.
“However, there are no guidelines related to the use of omega-3 supplements for preventing depression in the general population. Therefore, we undertook this study to provide clarity in the issue,” she said.
The VITAL-DEP study enrolled 18,353 older adults (mean age, 67.5 years; 49% women). Of these, 16,657 were at risk for incident depression, defined as having no previous history of depression; and 1696 were at risk for recurrent depression, defined as having a history of depression but not having undergone treatment for depression within the past 2 years.
Roughly half the participants were randomly assigned to receive marine omega-3 fatty acids (1 g/d of fish oil, including 465 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and 375 mg of docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) and the other half to matching placebo for an average of 5.3 years.
“Because of the large sample size and long follow-up, we were able to test the effects of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements on universal prevention of depression in the adult population,” Okereke said.
No significant benefit
Results showed risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms (total of incident and recurrent cases) was not significantly different between the omega-3 group and the placebo group.
The omega-3 group had 651 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (13.9 per 1000 person-years), and the placebo group had 583 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (12.3 per 1000 person-years). The hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01 - 1.26; P = .03).
There were also no significant between-group differences in longitudinal mood scores. The mean difference in change in 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) score was 0.03 points (95% CI, −0.01 to 0.07; P = .19).
“Patients, physicians, and other clinicians should understand that there are still many reasons for some people, under the guidance of their health care providers, to take omega-3 fish oil supplements,” Okereke noted.
“These supplements increasingly have been found to have benefits for cardiac disease prevention and treatment of inflammatory conditions, in addition to being used for management of existing depressive disorders in some high-risk patients,” she said.
“However, the results of our study indicate there is no reason for adults in the general population to be taking daily omega-3 fish oil supplements solely for the purpose of preventing depression or for maintaining a positive mood,” she added.
Okereke noted, however, that the VITAL-DEP study used 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids and there may be a greater benefit from taking higher doses, such as 4 g/day.
Cautionary notes
Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Kuan-Pin Su, MD, PhD, chief of the Department of General Psychiatry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, highlighted some of the limitations cited by the investigators.
First, depression or depressive symptoms were defined using self-rating scales, which are “convenient to screen for depressive disorders, but a high score obtained on a self-rating scale does not necessarily indicate the presence of depressive psychopathology,” said Su, who was not involved with the research.
He also noted that use of 465 mg of EPA and 375 mg of DHA in VITAL-DEP “might be too low” to have an impact.
Finally, Su said it is “very important to also address the potential for type I error, which makes the secondary and subgroup analyses less reliable.”
VITAL-DEP was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Pronova BioPharma donated the fish oil and matching placebo. Okereke reported receiving royalties from Springer Publishing. Su is a founding committee member of the International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry Research, the board director of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids, and an associate editor of the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves cabotegravir LA; New HIV PrEP option fills an important gap
SILVER SPRING, MD – .
The priority review approval was based on phase 2b-3 clinical trial data submitted to the agency this past August, after the study was stopped early due to encouraging efficacy results of the first pre-planned interim end-point analysis.
“Although TDF-FTC PrEP could be almost astoundingly effective in preventing HIV acquisition across populations and risk exposures, the adherence to the daily protocols was really challenging and difficult to attain initially and to maintain for some of our most vulnerable populations,” Raphael Landovitz, MD, MDC, lead study investigator and co-director of The Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at UCLA, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
Dr. Landovitz noted that population level benefits observed with PrEP were limited to people who were highly engaged in health care and well resourced, but the same benefits were not observed in the most vulnerable, highest-risk populations.
“The idea was, is there anything that we can do to improve ... choices for different options, some of which – like long-acting agents – would remove the obligation to adhere to daily prescribing or a post-coital and be more discreet,” he said.
Data demonstrated superiority versus TDF-FTC
Details of the prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women highlighted the superiority of CAB 600 mg intramuscularly versus placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg), with CAB-LA reducing HIV infection risk by 66%. These results were published August 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine and previously reported by this news organization.
Investigators identified HIV infections in 57 participants (including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection versus TDG-FTC was 0.34, P < .001. Notably, effects were consistent across prespecified subgroups and populations.
Additionally, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance mutations were detected in 1 of 4 of baseline HIV infection cases among CAB participants, while 2 of 39 incident infections in TDF-FTC participants occurred despite drug concentrations indicating good PrEP adherence.
Adverse events, breakthrough infections, and other important considerations
Because the trial was halted early, long-term safety data were lacking, thereby prompting investigators to launch an ongoing, open-label extension. In the initial trial, injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of CAB participants, most beginning a median of 1 day (IQR 0-2 days) post-injection, mild to moderate in severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness), and lasting a median of 3 days (IQR 2-6 days). In comparison, injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of TDF-FTC participants (who, incidentally, received at least one placebo injection).
Severe adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between CAB and TDF-FTC groups, They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatinine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).
Although weight gain was higher among CAB participants (1.23 kg/year vs. 0.37 kg/year, TDF-FTC participants), most of the differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss in the TDF-FDC group. Weight changes were similar (~1 kg/year) thereafter.
Importantly, study participants assigned CAB underwent an oral-tablet, 5-week lead-in phase, which might have contributed to eventual treatment failure.
In a companion piece published Nov. 1 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, investigators noted that adherence to the oral lead-in was poor in roughly one-third of participants with incident, breakthrough infections. They wrote that the barriers to adherence with daily oral PrEP regimens coupled with the favorable CAB-LA safety profile suggested that “the oral phase before CAB-LA initiation might not be necessary or desirable.”
The question remains as to whether or not strategies entailing viral load or other RNA screening tests at follow-up clinic visits might be warranted.
“It’s one of the biggest sort of ‘what’s next’ questions that’s come out of this study,” Dr. Landovitz said. “We’re now testing the strategy of using viral load or RNA screening at every visit to see if, in fact, we can catch these breakthrough infections earlier and potentially avoid resistance,” he added.
Until more data are available, Dr. Landovitz said that “the guidance for the clinician would be that until you have resistance testing back on someone who breaks through cabotegravir PrEP to use a protease inhibitor-based treatment regimen, at least initially.”
Institutional changes to ensure delivery of injections, tracking, and follow-up to ensure optimal use of long-acting PrEP agents are likely to challenge already overburdened health care systems and may require additional strategies for implementation (for example, pharmacy or at-home administration). Despite these factors, CAB-LA approval is welcome news to clinicians and patients alike.
“We’re constantly searching for new drugs to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Rosengren-Hovee was not involved in the study.
“For folks under 30, the sexual and gender minority, Black, and Latino, they are the ones with the highest need for PrEP, that are in a position that places them at higher risk for HIV. Being able to offer an injectable option is ... a game changer,” she said.
Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SILVER SPRING, MD – .
The priority review approval was based on phase 2b-3 clinical trial data submitted to the agency this past August, after the study was stopped early due to encouraging efficacy results of the first pre-planned interim end-point analysis.
“Although TDF-FTC PrEP could be almost astoundingly effective in preventing HIV acquisition across populations and risk exposures, the adherence to the daily protocols was really challenging and difficult to attain initially and to maintain for some of our most vulnerable populations,” Raphael Landovitz, MD, MDC, lead study investigator and co-director of The Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at UCLA, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
Dr. Landovitz noted that population level benefits observed with PrEP were limited to people who were highly engaged in health care and well resourced, but the same benefits were not observed in the most vulnerable, highest-risk populations.
“The idea was, is there anything that we can do to improve ... choices for different options, some of which – like long-acting agents – would remove the obligation to adhere to daily prescribing or a post-coital and be more discreet,” he said.
Data demonstrated superiority versus TDF-FTC
Details of the prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women highlighted the superiority of CAB 600 mg intramuscularly versus placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg), with CAB-LA reducing HIV infection risk by 66%. These results were published August 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine and previously reported by this news organization.
Investigators identified HIV infections in 57 participants (including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection versus TDG-FTC was 0.34, P < .001. Notably, effects were consistent across prespecified subgroups and populations.
Additionally, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance mutations were detected in 1 of 4 of baseline HIV infection cases among CAB participants, while 2 of 39 incident infections in TDF-FTC participants occurred despite drug concentrations indicating good PrEP adherence.
Adverse events, breakthrough infections, and other important considerations
Because the trial was halted early, long-term safety data were lacking, thereby prompting investigators to launch an ongoing, open-label extension. In the initial trial, injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of CAB participants, most beginning a median of 1 day (IQR 0-2 days) post-injection, mild to moderate in severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness), and lasting a median of 3 days (IQR 2-6 days). In comparison, injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of TDF-FTC participants (who, incidentally, received at least one placebo injection).
Severe adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between CAB and TDF-FTC groups, They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatinine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).
Although weight gain was higher among CAB participants (1.23 kg/year vs. 0.37 kg/year, TDF-FTC participants), most of the differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss in the TDF-FDC group. Weight changes were similar (~1 kg/year) thereafter.
Importantly, study participants assigned CAB underwent an oral-tablet, 5-week lead-in phase, which might have contributed to eventual treatment failure.
In a companion piece published Nov. 1 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, investigators noted that adherence to the oral lead-in was poor in roughly one-third of participants with incident, breakthrough infections. They wrote that the barriers to adherence with daily oral PrEP regimens coupled with the favorable CAB-LA safety profile suggested that “the oral phase before CAB-LA initiation might not be necessary or desirable.”
The question remains as to whether or not strategies entailing viral load or other RNA screening tests at follow-up clinic visits might be warranted.
“It’s one of the biggest sort of ‘what’s next’ questions that’s come out of this study,” Dr. Landovitz said. “We’re now testing the strategy of using viral load or RNA screening at every visit to see if, in fact, we can catch these breakthrough infections earlier and potentially avoid resistance,” he added.
Until more data are available, Dr. Landovitz said that “the guidance for the clinician would be that until you have resistance testing back on someone who breaks through cabotegravir PrEP to use a protease inhibitor-based treatment regimen, at least initially.”
Institutional changes to ensure delivery of injections, tracking, and follow-up to ensure optimal use of long-acting PrEP agents are likely to challenge already overburdened health care systems and may require additional strategies for implementation (for example, pharmacy or at-home administration). Despite these factors, CAB-LA approval is welcome news to clinicians and patients alike.
“We’re constantly searching for new drugs to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Rosengren-Hovee was not involved in the study.
“For folks under 30, the sexual and gender minority, Black, and Latino, they are the ones with the highest need for PrEP, that are in a position that places them at higher risk for HIV. Being able to offer an injectable option is ... a game changer,” she said.
Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SILVER SPRING, MD – .
The priority review approval was based on phase 2b-3 clinical trial data submitted to the agency this past August, after the study was stopped early due to encouraging efficacy results of the first pre-planned interim end-point analysis.
“Although TDF-FTC PrEP could be almost astoundingly effective in preventing HIV acquisition across populations and risk exposures, the adherence to the daily protocols was really challenging and difficult to attain initially and to maintain for some of our most vulnerable populations,” Raphael Landovitz, MD, MDC, lead study investigator and co-director of The Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at UCLA, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
Dr. Landovitz noted that population level benefits observed with PrEP were limited to people who were highly engaged in health care and well resourced, but the same benefits were not observed in the most vulnerable, highest-risk populations.
“The idea was, is there anything that we can do to improve ... choices for different options, some of which – like long-acting agents – would remove the obligation to adhere to daily prescribing or a post-coital and be more discreet,” he said.
Data demonstrated superiority versus TDF-FTC
Details of the prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women highlighted the superiority of CAB 600 mg intramuscularly versus placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg), with CAB-LA reducing HIV infection risk by 66%. These results were published August 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine and previously reported by this news organization.
Investigators identified HIV infections in 57 participants (including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection versus TDG-FTC was 0.34, P < .001. Notably, effects were consistent across prespecified subgroups and populations.
Additionally, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance mutations were detected in 1 of 4 of baseline HIV infection cases among CAB participants, while 2 of 39 incident infections in TDF-FTC participants occurred despite drug concentrations indicating good PrEP adherence.
Adverse events, breakthrough infections, and other important considerations
Because the trial was halted early, long-term safety data were lacking, thereby prompting investigators to launch an ongoing, open-label extension. In the initial trial, injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of CAB participants, most beginning a median of 1 day (IQR 0-2 days) post-injection, mild to moderate in severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness), and lasting a median of 3 days (IQR 2-6 days). In comparison, injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of TDF-FTC participants (who, incidentally, received at least one placebo injection).
Severe adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between CAB and TDF-FTC groups, They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatinine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).
Although weight gain was higher among CAB participants (1.23 kg/year vs. 0.37 kg/year, TDF-FTC participants), most of the differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss in the TDF-FDC group. Weight changes were similar (~1 kg/year) thereafter.
Importantly, study participants assigned CAB underwent an oral-tablet, 5-week lead-in phase, which might have contributed to eventual treatment failure.
In a companion piece published Nov. 1 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, investigators noted that adherence to the oral lead-in was poor in roughly one-third of participants with incident, breakthrough infections. They wrote that the barriers to adherence with daily oral PrEP regimens coupled with the favorable CAB-LA safety profile suggested that “the oral phase before CAB-LA initiation might not be necessary or desirable.”
The question remains as to whether or not strategies entailing viral load or other RNA screening tests at follow-up clinic visits might be warranted.
“It’s one of the biggest sort of ‘what’s next’ questions that’s come out of this study,” Dr. Landovitz said. “We’re now testing the strategy of using viral load or RNA screening at every visit to see if, in fact, we can catch these breakthrough infections earlier and potentially avoid resistance,” he added.
Until more data are available, Dr. Landovitz said that “the guidance for the clinician would be that until you have resistance testing back on someone who breaks through cabotegravir PrEP to use a protease inhibitor-based treatment regimen, at least initially.”
Institutional changes to ensure delivery of injections, tracking, and follow-up to ensure optimal use of long-acting PrEP agents are likely to challenge already overburdened health care systems and may require additional strategies for implementation (for example, pharmacy or at-home administration). Despite these factors, CAB-LA approval is welcome news to clinicians and patients alike.
“We’re constantly searching for new drugs to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Rosengren-Hovee was not involved in the study.
“For folks under 30, the sexual and gender minority, Black, and Latino, they are the ones with the highest need for PrEP, that are in a position that places them at higher risk for HIV. Being able to offer an injectable option is ... a game changer,” she said.
Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA agrees that mifepristone is safe enough to dispense by mail
The Food and Drug Administration has announced that women no longer will have to pick up the abortion pill mifepristone (Mifeprex) in person at certain certified sites and can get a prescription via an online consultation and delivery through the mail.
In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and in December the agency made that decision permanent.
As this news organization reported on April 12, 2021, acting commissioner of food and drugs, Janet Woodcock, MD, stated that the FDA would “permit the dispensing of mifepristone through the mail when done by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber; or through a mail-order pharmacy under the supervision of a certified prescriber.”
That decision came after suspension of the in-person dispensing requirement in response to COVID-19 safety concerns for patients as well as providers associated with in-person clinic visits.
Decision comes amid Supreme Court debate
The FDA decision comes as the Supreme Court nears a decision on whether to overturn its 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade.
Additionally, the Supreme Court on returned a lawsuit over Texas’ ban on abortions after 6 weeks to a federal appeals court that has twice allowed the law to stay in effect, rather than to a district judge who wanted it blocked.
Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement, “Abortion is time sensitive, essential health care, and this decision will remove a sometimes insurmountable barrier for patients seeking an abortion. With abortion rights at risk like never before, the FDA’s decision is a long overdue step toward expanding people’s access to safe medication abortion.”
Georgeanne Usova, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union told CNBC News: “The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients.”
Catherine D. Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, and member of the editorial advisory board for ObGyn News said in an interview: “I think that this change is a long time coming and speaks to the fact that science matters and medicine prevails over politics. We need to protect health rights first!”
Others expressed doubt or outrage.
Fidelma Rigby, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, division of maternal fetal medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, said in an interview: “My concern is that what if there is an ectopic pregnancy? I’m not as enthusiastic as some of my partners would be about this announcement.”
“The FDA’s decision today places women at risk,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “These changes do not make this abortion process safer for women. What these changes do is make the process easier for the abortion industry.”
The antiabortion groups Charlotte Lozier Institute and the Susan B. Anthony List were among other organizations issuing statements against Dec. 16’s FDA ruling.
The FDA stated that mifepristone prescribers will still need to earn certification and training. Additionally, the agency said dispensing pharmacies will have to be certified.
The FDA said in updated guidance on its website that after conducting a review of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, it “determined that the data support modification of the REMS to reduce burden on patient access and the health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”
The modifications include:
- “Removing the requirement that mifepristone be dispensed only in certain health care settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals (referred to as the ‘in-person dispensing requirement’).”
- Adding a requirement that pharmacies must be certified to dispense the drug.
The FDA said removing the in-person dispensing rule will allow delivery of mifepristone by mail via certified prescribers or pharmacies, in addition to in-person dispensing in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals.
In 2018, an expert National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine panel concluded that requiring that medication abortion be provided at only certain facilities, solely by a physician or in the physical presence of certain providers, did not improve safety or quality of care.
Mifepristone is used, together with misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy. The FDA first approved Mifeprex in 2000 for use through 10 weeks’ gestation. According to the FDA, mifepristone is approved in more than 60 other countries.
Many states bar mailing of abortion pills
However, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 19 U.S. states have laws that bar telehealth consultations or mailing of abortion pills.
Reuters reported that women in those states would not be able to make use of the rule change get the drug delivered to their home but could potentially travel to other states to obtain medication abortion.
“States such as California and New York that have sought to strengthen access to abortion may make the drug available to women from other states,” Reuters reported.
Jessica Arons, senior advocacy and policy counsel for reproductive freedom at the ACLU, told CBS News, “Medication abortion is one more lens through which we see that we are witnessing a tale of two countries. Half the states are protecting access to abortion and half are trying every single way they can to eliminate access to abortion care.”
Positive results when Canada lifted restrictions
As this news organization has reported, a study found positive results when Canada lifted restrictions on access to the abortion pills and a good safety profile for mifepristone.
A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found abortion rates remained stable and adverse events were rare after mifepristone prescribing restrictions were lifted in Canada.
Senior author Wendy V. Norman, MD, professor in the department of family practice at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a statement, “Our study is a signal to other countries that restrictions are not necessary to ensure patient safety.”
Another recent study in JAMA Network Open (2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22320) found that abortion via telehealth prescriptions may be just as safe and effective as in-person care.
The study investigators said that, “of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.”
The Food and Drug Administration has announced that women no longer will have to pick up the abortion pill mifepristone (Mifeprex) in person at certain certified sites and can get a prescription via an online consultation and delivery through the mail.
In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and in December the agency made that decision permanent.
As this news organization reported on April 12, 2021, acting commissioner of food and drugs, Janet Woodcock, MD, stated that the FDA would “permit the dispensing of mifepristone through the mail when done by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber; or through a mail-order pharmacy under the supervision of a certified prescriber.”
That decision came after suspension of the in-person dispensing requirement in response to COVID-19 safety concerns for patients as well as providers associated with in-person clinic visits.
Decision comes amid Supreme Court debate
The FDA decision comes as the Supreme Court nears a decision on whether to overturn its 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade.
Additionally, the Supreme Court on returned a lawsuit over Texas’ ban on abortions after 6 weeks to a federal appeals court that has twice allowed the law to stay in effect, rather than to a district judge who wanted it blocked.
Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement, “Abortion is time sensitive, essential health care, and this decision will remove a sometimes insurmountable barrier for patients seeking an abortion. With abortion rights at risk like never before, the FDA’s decision is a long overdue step toward expanding people’s access to safe medication abortion.”
Georgeanne Usova, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union told CNBC News: “The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients.”
Catherine D. Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, and member of the editorial advisory board for ObGyn News said in an interview: “I think that this change is a long time coming and speaks to the fact that science matters and medicine prevails over politics. We need to protect health rights first!”
Others expressed doubt or outrage.
Fidelma Rigby, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, division of maternal fetal medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, said in an interview: “My concern is that what if there is an ectopic pregnancy? I’m not as enthusiastic as some of my partners would be about this announcement.”
“The FDA’s decision today places women at risk,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “These changes do not make this abortion process safer for women. What these changes do is make the process easier for the abortion industry.”
The antiabortion groups Charlotte Lozier Institute and the Susan B. Anthony List were among other organizations issuing statements against Dec. 16’s FDA ruling.
The FDA stated that mifepristone prescribers will still need to earn certification and training. Additionally, the agency said dispensing pharmacies will have to be certified.
The FDA said in updated guidance on its website that after conducting a review of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, it “determined that the data support modification of the REMS to reduce burden on patient access and the health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”
The modifications include:
- “Removing the requirement that mifepristone be dispensed only in certain health care settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals (referred to as the ‘in-person dispensing requirement’).”
- Adding a requirement that pharmacies must be certified to dispense the drug.
The FDA said removing the in-person dispensing rule will allow delivery of mifepristone by mail via certified prescribers or pharmacies, in addition to in-person dispensing in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals.
In 2018, an expert National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine panel concluded that requiring that medication abortion be provided at only certain facilities, solely by a physician or in the physical presence of certain providers, did not improve safety or quality of care.
Mifepristone is used, together with misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy. The FDA first approved Mifeprex in 2000 for use through 10 weeks’ gestation. According to the FDA, mifepristone is approved in more than 60 other countries.
Many states bar mailing of abortion pills
However, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 19 U.S. states have laws that bar telehealth consultations or mailing of abortion pills.
Reuters reported that women in those states would not be able to make use of the rule change get the drug delivered to their home but could potentially travel to other states to obtain medication abortion.
“States such as California and New York that have sought to strengthen access to abortion may make the drug available to women from other states,” Reuters reported.
Jessica Arons, senior advocacy and policy counsel for reproductive freedom at the ACLU, told CBS News, “Medication abortion is one more lens through which we see that we are witnessing a tale of two countries. Half the states are protecting access to abortion and half are trying every single way they can to eliminate access to abortion care.”
Positive results when Canada lifted restrictions
As this news organization has reported, a study found positive results when Canada lifted restrictions on access to the abortion pills and a good safety profile for mifepristone.
A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found abortion rates remained stable and adverse events were rare after mifepristone prescribing restrictions were lifted in Canada.
Senior author Wendy V. Norman, MD, professor in the department of family practice at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a statement, “Our study is a signal to other countries that restrictions are not necessary to ensure patient safety.”
Another recent study in JAMA Network Open (2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22320) found that abortion via telehealth prescriptions may be just as safe and effective as in-person care.
The study investigators said that, “of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.”
The Food and Drug Administration has announced that women no longer will have to pick up the abortion pill mifepristone (Mifeprex) in person at certain certified sites and can get a prescription via an online consultation and delivery through the mail.
In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and in December the agency made that decision permanent.
As this news organization reported on April 12, 2021, acting commissioner of food and drugs, Janet Woodcock, MD, stated that the FDA would “permit the dispensing of mifepristone through the mail when done by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber; or through a mail-order pharmacy under the supervision of a certified prescriber.”
That decision came after suspension of the in-person dispensing requirement in response to COVID-19 safety concerns for patients as well as providers associated with in-person clinic visits.
Decision comes amid Supreme Court debate
The FDA decision comes as the Supreme Court nears a decision on whether to overturn its 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade.
Additionally, the Supreme Court on returned a lawsuit over Texas’ ban on abortions after 6 weeks to a federal appeals court that has twice allowed the law to stay in effect, rather than to a district judge who wanted it blocked.
Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement, “Abortion is time sensitive, essential health care, and this decision will remove a sometimes insurmountable barrier for patients seeking an abortion. With abortion rights at risk like never before, the FDA’s decision is a long overdue step toward expanding people’s access to safe medication abortion.”
Georgeanne Usova, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union told CNBC News: “The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients.”
Catherine D. Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, and member of the editorial advisory board for ObGyn News said in an interview: “I think that this change is a long time coming and speaks to the fact that science matters and medicine prevails over politics. We need to protect health rights first!”
Others expressed doubt or outrage.
Fidelma Rigby, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, division of maternal fetal medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, said in an interview: “My concern is that what if there is an ectopic pregnancy? I’m not as enthusiastic as some of my partners would be about this announcement.”
“The FDA’s decision today places women at risk,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “These changes do not make this abortion process safer for women. What these changes do is make the process easier for the abortion industry.”
The antiabortion groups Charlotte Lozier Institute and the Susan B. Anthony List were among other organizations issuing statements against Dec. 16’s FDA ruling.
The FDA stated that mifepristone prescribers will still need to earn certification and training. Additionally, the agency said dispensing pharmacies will have to be certified.
The FDA said in updated guidance on its website that after conducting a review of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, it “determined that the data support modification of the REMS to reduce burden on patient access and the health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”
The modifications include:
- “Removing the requirement that mifepristone be dispensed only in certain health care settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals (referred to as the ‘in-person dispensing requirement’).”
- Adding a requirement that pharmacies must be certified to dispense the drug.
The FDA said removing the in-person dispensing rule will allow delivery of mifepristone by mail via certified prescribers or pharmacies, in addition to in-person dispensing in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals.
In 2018, an expert National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine panel concluded that requiring that medication abortion be provided at only certain facilities, solely by a physician or in the physical presence of certain providers, did not improve safety or quality of care.
Mifepristone is used, together with misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy. The FDA first approved Mifeprex in 2000 for use through 10 weeks’ gestation. According to the FDA, mifepristone is approved in more than 60 other countries.
Many states bar mailing of abortion pills
However, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 19 U.S. states have laws that bar telehealth consultations or mailing of abortion pills.
Reuters reported that women in those states would not be able to make use of the rule change get the drug delivered to their home but could potentially travel to other states to obtain medication abortion.
“States such as California and New York that have sought to strengthen access to abortion may make the drug available to women from other states,” Reuters reported.
Jessica Arons, senior advocacy and policy counsel for reproductive freedom at the ACLU, told CBS News, “Medication abortion is one more lens through which we see that we are witnessing a tale of two countries. Half the states are protecting access to abortion and half are trying every single way they can to eliminate access to abortion care.”
Positive results when Canada lifted restrictions
As this news organization has reported, a study found positive results when Canada lifted restrictions on access to the abortion pills and a good safety profile for mifepristone.
A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found abortion rates remained stable and adverse events were rare after mifepristone prescribing restrictions were lifted in Canada.
Senior author Wendy V. Norman, MD, professor in the department of family practice at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a statement, “Our study is a signal to other countries that restrictions are not necessary to ensure patient safety.”
Another recent study in JAMA Network Open (2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22320) found that abortion via telehealth prescriptions may be just as safe and effective as in-person care.
The study investigators said that, “of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.”
FDA grants new indication to lumateperone (Caplyta) for bipolar depression
The Food and Drug Administration has expanded approval of lumateperone (Caplyta) to include treatment of adults with depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and II disorder, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate.
This makes lumateperone the only FDA-approved drug for this indication.
“The efficacy, and favorable safety and tolerability profile, make Caplyta an important treatment option for the millions of patients living with bipolar I or II depression and represents a major development for these patients,” Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said in a company news release.
Lumateperone was first approved by the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia.
‘Positioned to launch immediately’
that showed treatment with lumateperone, alone or with lithium or valproate, significantly improved depressive symptoms for patients with major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and bipolar II disorders.
In these studies, treatment with a 42-mg once-daily dose was associated with significantly greater improvement from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score versus placebo.
Lumateperone also showed a statistically significant improvement in the key secondary endpoint relating to clinical global impression of bipolar disorder.
Somnolence/sedation, dizziness, nausea, and dry mouth were the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the medication. Minimal changes were observed in weight and vital signs and in results of metabolic or endocrine assessments. Incidence of extrapyramidal symptom–related events was low and was similar to those with placebo.
Sharon Mates, PhD, chairman and CEO of Intra-Cellular Therapies, noted in the same press release that the company is “positioned to launch immediately and are excited to offer Caplyta to the millions of patients living with bipolar depression.”
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has expanded approval of lumateperone (Caplyta) to include treatment of adults with depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and II disorder, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate.
This makes lumateperone the only FDA-approved drug for this indication.
“The efficacy, and favorable safety and tolerability profile, make Caplyta an important treatment option for the millions of patients living with bipolar I or II depression and represents a major development for these patients,” Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said in a company news release.
Lumateperone was first approved by the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia.
‘Positioned to launch immediately’
that showed treatment with lumateperone, alone or with lithium or valproate, significantly improved depressive symptoms for patients with major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and bipolar II disorders.
In these studies, treatment with a 42-mg once-daily dose was associated with significantly greater improvement from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score versus placebo.
Lumateperone also showed a statistically significant improvement in the key secondary endpoint relating to clinical global impression of bipolar disorder.
Somnolence/sedation, dizziness, nausea, and dry mouth were the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the medication. Minimal changes were observed in weight and vital signs and in results of metabolic or endocrine assessments. Incidence of extrapyramidal symptom–related events was low and was similar to those with placebo.
Sharon Mates, PhD, chairman and CEO of Intra-Cellular Therapies, noted in the same press release that the company is “positioned to launch immediately and are excited to offer Caplyta to the millions of patients living with bipolar depression.”
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has expanded approval of lumateperone (Caplyta) to include treatment of adults with depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and II disorder, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate.
This makes lumateperone the only FDA-approved drug for this indication.
“The efficacy, and favorable safety and tolerability profile, make Caplyta an important treatment option for the millions of patients living with bipolar I or II depression and represents a major development for these patients,” Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said in a company news release.
Lumateperone was first approved by the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia.
‘Positioned to launch immediately’
that showed treatment with lumateperone, alone or with lithium or valproate, significantly improved depressive symptoms for patients with major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and bipolar II disorders.
In these studies, treatment with a 42-mg once-daily dose was associated with significantly greater improvement from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score versus placebo.
Lumateperone also showed a statistically significant improvement in the key secondary endpoint relating to clinical global impression of bipolar disorder.
Somnolence/sedation, dizziness, nausea, and dry mouth were the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the medication. Minimal changes were observed in weight and vital signs and in results of metabolic or endocrine assessments. Incidence of extrapyramidal symptom–related events was low and was similar to those with placebo.
Sharon Mates, PhD, chairman and CEO of Intra-Cellular Therapies, noted in the same press release that the company is “positioned to launch immediately and are excited to offer Caplyta to the millions of patients living with bipolar depression.”
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.